Their blog visitors were giving them a clear message. Of 2268 voters, 80% didn’t like their plan.

Even though this poll started on May 4th, 2009, within 2 hours of the link being posted here, a dreadful accident must have occurred and the page disappeared to a 403 error. It wasn’t just lost from Sarah Hanson-Young’s blog, it also disappeared from Bob Brown’s blog, and Adam Bandt’s blog. (It had taken them many blog-page-years to amass those results, which says something about traffic stats of the Greens blog.)

To help them I’ve saved a screen capture, with the results.

The long running successful poll has mysteriously been taken over by what looks like a feral cat.

…

If you read the text you can appreciate the unwittingly pithy humor of the Greens. They’ve quite captured something (the stern-school-ma’am-talks-down-to-a-naughty-boy).

Oh no! You don’t have access to view that page!

Please don’t try to access things that you don’t have access to. They could be secret files and plans, or copies of our private banking details. Most likely it will be something boring like the receipt for the coffee machine. If we had a coffee machine. I think we deserve a coffee machine, don’t you?

But DON’T PANIC! You can always just go back. Or forward. Or even sideways. We won’t impose any directional stipulations on your exit. You’re free! Alternatively, you could get involved in the Greens. Then we might give you access. Well, we’ll have to ask serious cat first, obviously…

(Steve saved a slightly more up to date shot, showing “81%” say NO with even more votes – 1818 NOes and 450 Yeses.)

Celebrate Diversity, Listen to the People, and ignore anyone you disagree with:

“Were you to arrive in Australia and read the front pages of our newspapers you would be forgiven for thinking that we are living in some type of black hole, devoid of information, news and expert opinion from the rest the world.”

“What other possible explanation could there be for the ignorance of those who warn of the end of civilisation were a carbon tax to established…”

I thought I’d help spur on the comments on the Greens blog, which is struggling to get two responses on a thread, and tried to add this to the thread last week. (None of it has got past moderation yet.) Remember, I used to be a member:

Devoid of Information?

I was shocked when I looked at the evidence and discovered that there is no observable, empirical evidence to support warming greater than 1 degree. Only climate models, with exaggerated assumptions about the behaviour of water vapor and clouds, amplify rising-CO2 into a catastrophe.

Science is being exploited to serve other purposes and thousands of scientists are blowing the whistle. The Greens unfortunately haven’t seen the backlash that’s coming as the public wake up to the litany of half-truths.

Look at the evidence, not the pronouncements of committees. The truth lies in the measurements of weather balloons, satellites, and ocean buoys.

The more the Greens hide from the debate and the words of critics the weaker they become. It’s only through real discussion, and free speech that a group grows stronger.

If you have to hide a comment that is polite, you have much to fear.

Jo

I can see why they don’t get much traffic.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 4.0/10 (6 votes cast)

Greens run and hide from poll results, 4.0 out of 10 based on 6 ratings

Adults really shouldn’t poke fun at children. However in this case I will make an exception.

I think the cat says it all, I mean ‘serious cat’ – really? And these juveniles honestly believe they can be a genuine political force.
They’ve only got as far as they have because no one takes them seriously. I guess that is certainly changing now, it must be a big shock for them.

Jo. Some weeks ago I posted about wind farm pollution on the Greens thread you tried, with a link to the Baotou rare earth mining pollution scandal. Initially, the heading of my post was acknowledged on the recent comments list and remained there for some time (which as you have pointed out, indicates the lack of traffic they “enjoy”). However, there is no way anyone could access the post. Clicking on it triggered a lot of activity which eventually took one back to their article, but not to my full post!

They do not like their supporters exposed to any truth.

I posted similarly on “Get Up” and got a response saying “somebody has a bit of problem with their pollution. What’s your point”?

Very appropriate: – an angry white well fed pussy. Kinda like every society which rides its well-fed 1st world guilt into this scam while comfortably enjoying the fruits of the 3rd world sweatshop labour & no ECO FRIENDLY energy.

Yep, sums up the Greens to a tea!

Hope that pussy doesn’t prey on too many natives to keep a healthy coat.

Yet another example of someone straying beyond their field of expertise. No doubt this will be touted by some as additional support for their irrational beliefs that a “price on carbon pollution” will somehow save the planet.

It sounds very “Yes, (Prime) Minister”. One of their principles was to ask the right question, or make the question the last in a series of questions that would sway the person into giving the right answer, as per the episode “The Grand Design”.

no no no you have it all wrong. The 80% against poll merely shows that the emissions reductions are not big enough.
The greens supporters want a 100% reduction.

Mind you I’m a bit surprised that they have a cat on their site since they hate them so much for eating our native wildlife, oh hang on, the inner city latte drinking lefties don’t even know what an environmental problem looks like!

One can only hope that the climate clowns may yet be brought to heal ,waiting in the shadows are the big companies who have alot at stake , they may as unlikely as it seems bring these crooks out in the open .
Tony Abbott can see which way the wind is blowing , it would take a brave man to not investigate this further and come up with a sustainable cost effective alternative before going to the polls !
The Fifth column currently holding onto the reigns will be annihilated the first opportunity the people of Australia can get ! Each day that passes the total incompetence and arrogance of this Government is becoming more obvious . We must keep informing those who do not know or understand , every day , every opportunity .WE HAVE THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD AND WE SHOULD DECIDE IF THIS IS THE PATH WE WISH TO FOLLOW !! .The U.N , IPCC ,Crackpot Scientists , Socialists Etc , are NOT our masters.!
WE ARE AUSTRALIANS WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE OUR OWN PATH !
COMMON SENCE AND LOGIC MUST PREVAIL !
We have the right to choose the path our children and their children should follow ,not some flawed ideology !!
All politicians had better note they are only there because of US for US ,and believe me if you manage to piss enough of us off the time of social revolution is upon you !!
Look around the world ,Egypt , Syria , Libya, etc THINK IT CAN’T HAPPEN HERE ?
Australians have far more to lose and i believe in the Australian people to make the right choice ,
NOT the Australian politician ! With so much to LOSE if the right decisions are not made ,at what point is enough enough ? I love this country too much , worked too hard , to see it going down this path of ignorance , greed and self destruction . If ever there was a time to unite as a nation this is the time , Talk to your friends , neighbors and family ask them is this right ? Most will see the truth ! Most will understand !
WHO IS WITH ME ! AUSTRALIA HOME OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE , FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS OUR FUTURE WE WILL SAVE .

I voted before the Green ban. Obviously they only want the result of votes from the Green voters – which would then be close to 100% – but why hold a poll if you know the result?
I wonder, did they withdraw the poll before the say YES rallies? Because after the rallies they were spruiking that most Aussies want a tax on Carbon (dioxide). It would be embarassing if we said – well that’s NOT what the Greens own poll says!

“Something that, when studying climate change, scientists rarely consider important, is the place the Earth occupies in the solar system at a given time; but it opens unexpected horizons of study, he added.

“The scientist said that this “mini-ice age” will last 60 to 80 years, “forcing us to rethink our economy, technology and science. For example, if the north begins to have an energy deficit, and there develops an increased need for food; we must think about it today to begin to prepare for (provide for) tomorrow.

“But how to reconcile the evidence that the planet cools with those who say it’s warming? “Today we live in a scientific revolution in which, on the one hand, there are supercomputers, and on the other hand, human intelligence. Only human beings create knowledge and science, and those who bet on the computers made a wrong diagnosis. It will be Nature that will show which theory is correct, “and yet” the professor concluded, “the Earth cools”

There is a near universal use of the term “carbon” to describe the so called climate warming pollutant “Carbon Dioxide” aka CO2 so it may get very interesting when the legislation comes out on the ‘carbon” tax. If the term “carbon” is used in the “carbon” tax or the ETS legislation instead of the correct term “Carbon Dioxide” then the tax will be on the completely wrong substance and I would suspect be declared null and void in a High Court challenge.

Now that would be an embarrassment that no government could ever overcome, particularly one which is expending so much political capital to impose this “carbon” tax against ever increasing amounts of research and data showing global temperatures were flat and then very slowly declining over the last decade despite rising CO2 levels,
The truly astonishing thing here is the amount of increasingly scarce political capital and political resources that Gillard and Labor are pouring into getting this tax up and running against ever increasing public skepticism about the financial and climate influencing effects of the tax and the increasing opposition to any sort of climate tax .
Meanwhile the increasing volume of science and research are showing that there will be absolutely no effect let alone any benefit of any sort seen for the next half dozen generations at least and that’s assuming any benefit of any sort will ever be seen from the imposition of this”carbon” tax.
A fact that even the Climate Commissioner Flim Flannery seems aware of judging by his admission that it might be a thousand years before we see any result or benefit.

And have I detected a shift in the media as the Australian this morning used “CO2″ in it’s front page headline instead of the usual “carbon”. Maybe it was just to save space or maybe someone there reads the Weatherzone forum where I regularly rail against the use of the totally incorrect term “carbon” instead of Carbon Dioxide or CO2.

An official response (as I noted elsewhere yesterday), from David Paris, Digital Communications Coordinator for the Greens’ Parliamentarians, is:

We have not used the poll feature on our website for some time.
There are several old items on our site that relate to the 2009 negotiations around the Rudd government’s deeply flawed CPRS that have been removed to avoid confusion with the current debate about a price on pollution. The poll you are referring to is one of those – from May 2009.

how bizarre is this year-old “survey”? funding from the usual suspects, of course:

3 June: Gold Coast Mail: Climate change sceptics endangered
The survey of almost 3100 Australians found 74 per cent believe the world’s climate is changing.
When asked a different question about the causes of climate change, which removed the reference to personal beliefs, 90 per cent of respondents said human activity was a factor.
Just five per cent said climate change was entirely caused by natural processes.
Overall, less than six per cent of respondents could reasonably be classified as true climate change sceptics, the study by Griffith UThe survey was carried out in June and July last year, with the results released on Friday.
Prof Reser said the survey was one of the few in-depth studies that really drilled down into public perceptions and understandings about climate change.
He said the survey questions were framed in several ways, to really get to the bottom of what people believed and understood…
“Our findings suggest that Australians feel the threat to their local region and nation more intensely and that’s not surprising given the nature, intensity, and dramatic impacts of natural disaster events in the past few years,” he said.
“With nonstop media images, sound bites, warning messages, and popularised science accounts of planetary threat, psychological impacts are not surprising.
“However, we have neglected how the threat and physical environmental consequences of climate change are impacting on the human landscape.”
The survey was commissioned by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and funded by the federal government’s Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency’s Climate Change Adaptation Research Grants program.http://www.goldcoastmail.com.au/story/2011/06/03/climate-change-sceptics-endangered-study/

just wanted to show the totally unsurprising connections of some of the Vivid Economics team!

Vivid Economics: Principal, Simon Dietz
He is currently acting as Co-Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics (LSE), where he is also Senior Lecturer in Environmental Policy. He built his reputation as an economic advisor to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
He holds a Ph.D. and an M.Sc. (with distinction) from the LSE, a starred first class degree in Environmental Science from the University of East Anglia, and also attended the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich.http://www.vivideconomics.com/index.php/meet-our-team/simon-dietz

Director, Cameron Hepburn
He currently holds Research Fellowships at the London School of Economics (Grantham Research Institute) and at Oxford University (New College and the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment). He is also a member of the UK Defra Academic Panel, an Associate Editor of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy, and is a co-founder and director of Climate Bridge Ltd.

Director, Sam Frankhauser
He is acting co-director of the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics. He also serves as Chief Economist to Globe International, the international legislator organisation and is a member of the UK Committee on Climate Change.

The survey was commissioned by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and funded by the federal government’s Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency’s Climate Change Adaptation Research Grants program.

If 3000 Australians are carefully selected and asked loaded questions, or carefully framed ones, you can get nearly any marketable quote you want.

From the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility’s survey,

Overall, less than six per cent of respondents could reasonably be classified as true climate change sceptics

Ay, yes, the old, “Not a true…”. Not a true climate change sceptic unless you assert that climate change is completely natural? Of course, it might help if “natural” were defined.
I’m a sceptic, yet I should have answered that man does contribute slightly to climatic change: cities, dams, farming, forestry, roads and so on, surely have some effect. I’m sure, too, that zebras, elephants, beavers, earthworms and ants also have an effect.

Without knowing why people said “No” the results are meaningless. Maybe most of the “No’s” don’t want regulation of co2 emissions at all. Or maybe most of the “No’s” what even stricter regulation than what the poll’s “Yes” answer suggests.

Anyway, online polls are not trustworthy. No ability to measure and normalise for biases in demographic sample and easy to game for anyone with a bit of technical knowledge and motivation/mischief.

The censor needs lessons in grammar. One does not end a sentence with a preposition unless perhaps he or she forgot to append “unless you’re our hero Julian Assange.” It would have been better written as “to which you don’t have access.”

But Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Australian there was little point doing anything about Australia’s feral camels as only the CO2 of the domesticated variety is counted under the Kyoto Protocol. That equates to only a small number of the beasts, the sort found lugging tourists around Cable Beach in Broome and at Monarto Zoo, southeast of Adelaide.

On the other hand Oz mightn’t sign up for Kyoto II. Then it would be clean & green to whack camels for their credits. Warmist catch 22?

All question based polls are meaningless because of the subtly of language, both in the question, and in the interpretation of the results. You give a good example of post hoc rationalization.

It is the fact that the Greens felt the need to mount a poll, that is interesting.

Did they do it because they had doubts about their proposition? I doubt it. Did they do it because they wanted to judge the public response to their proposition? That is more likely, but having got the “wrong” results, are they going to change their proposition? I doubt it. Did they do it because they wanted some evidence to wave in front of the Polly’s? That could be a reason, but then why not just inflate the “Yes” vote by a factor that gave them the result they wanted – it has been done before. But they didn’t.

I really cannot understand why they bothered at all. Perhaps they are just naive and incompetent?

Last night I pointed out the climatic impact of the summer of 1816 to be told by a green person , The drivel that follows , This was the basic gist of their response ,
1-it was an anomaly
2-what proof did I have ? Was I there ???
3-volcanoes are not the problem !!!! Man is !!
WTF !!! I wonder what else there putting in their koolaide ?
Is it true 1984 was removed from required reading in schools ?
If so that explains everything .
Good Grief Charlie Brown .now where did I put that Red T…oops I mean green T Shirt … Let’s see now how’s about…… EARTH FIRST we will mine the rest of the planets later.

Is the environment editor (Graham Lloyd) at The Australian for real?
Does anyone know if he actually has any science credentials to speak of?
The Editor seems to be a warmanista …
I guess I’ll have to cancel my subscription to that newspaper.
whatever happened to good old fashioned forensic journalism?
When did journalism become cut & paste?
When did newspapers become mouthpieces for the government?
Freedom is under attack ….

GREG COMBET: No, it will not. And you just made the point to me a moment ago that of course you’ve gotta take into account our particular circumstances in Australia. And one of our circumstances in Australia is that the coal industry and the LNG industry are contributing the fastest growing category of greenhouse gases in our economy. And it is not credible for us not to include those important sectors within a carbon pricing scheme. If you didn’t, what you’d be doing is asking other sectors of the economy like the manufacturing industry to bear the cost of the pollution reductions, and to achieve it at least cost we need to include the major sectors of our economy.

On the coal industry specifically, at an example of a $20-per-tonne carbon price, the average liability for each tonne of coal mined in our economy for its methane emissions would be about $1.60 per tonne, and that’s in a context where steaming coal’s selling for more than $120 a tonne and coking coal in particular’s selling for more than $320 a tonne.

You know, people like Tony Abbott are running round saying it’s gonna be the end of the coal industry, the sky is gonna fall in. I mean, he’s the best Chicken Little you’ve ever seen. But in fact this is a manageable economic and environmental reform and we predict that the costs will be modest.

I am aware that CH4 is apparently a far worse GHG than CO2 & I guess the MPCCC may have considered different rates for different GHGs. Further, they may have even settled on a global figure for the amount of methane released by mining 1 tonne of coal. However the CO2 produced by burning basically 1 tonne of coal (without looking up a grade 10 chem text for atomic weight ) would have to be > 2+ tonnes!

Either Greg is not keeping up while sitting in at the MPCCC (possible) or both his hands are too busy to get a handle on his portfolio ( my bet ) or….

He has knowingly using the friendly national broadcaster to get a figure of “$1.60 per tonne of coal” out into the collective national consciousness.

Either way, I feel the effort last night was less than we have a right to expect from our ministers & our publicly funded broadcaster.

RESULTS: 8 helicopters are procured, of which 6 are found to be non-airworthy and requiring $110M of refurbishment before use, the remaining two helicopters crash killing the crews, 6 unskilled young men are shot dead by accidental misuse of the rifles. By the end of the cull which takes 5 years, 14 dingos, 1024 Emus, 139 Kangaroos, 21 Wedgetail Eagles, 41,238 Feral Donkeys, 20,091 Feral Horses, 3 saltwater crocodiles, a minibus of japanese tourists and 20,003 camels are culled for a total cost of $4.23B AUD before the program is cancelled and the relevant minister moved to Japan as ambassador.

Pattoh in 24 and 50, the transcript makes it pretty clear that the discussion was about the impact of the tax on coal production in terms of international competitiveness of coal exports. So the tax does not apply to the CO2 emissions of burning coal when that coal is burned overseas. But it will be taxed on methane emissions relating to the mining of the coal. The fact that coal that is burned for domestic use is taxed has no impact on the competitiveness of local coal mining as if someone imported coal to do the same job it would also face the tax.

here is the question the precedes the paragraphs you quoted:

“LEIGH SALES: Australia is heavily dependent on coal production. The Australian Coal Association released research yesterday showing that none of our competitors in coal production are applying carbon taxes or emissions reduction schemes. So, is a carbon price going to put Australia at a competitive disadvantage?”

Pattoh 24 & 50 and MattB 52. Hate to admit it (first and ?last) but Matt is close to the mark.
What Combet is talking about is taxing the fugitive methane emmissions which occur from many (but not all) coal mines. There is a whole bureaucracy building up around this reporting (NGER) which will cost companies money. I think his answers was a little slippery though.

Although I might have agreed with you above Matt you still have no idea about the impacts of this tax when you state that “The fact that coal that is burned for domestic use is taxed has no impact on the competitiveness of local coal mining”. So what’s the point in bringing it in? Will it have a follow on impact on the electricity industry and will that further flow on to other industries such as alumina production? Maybe the alumina industry will just move offshore to get cheaper (tax free electricity)as solar and wind won’t be able to supply it 24/7.

Transcript
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: A short time ago I was joined from Newcastle by the Climate Change Minister Greg Combet.

Minister, the Productivity Commission report finds that carbon pricing in Germany and the UK boosted electricity prices by 12 per cent and 17 per cent respectively. Is that what Australians have to look forward to?

GREG COMBET, CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER: Well, no, what – the two key things out of the report are that there is a lot of action going on in the economies of seven of our major trading partners to reduce pollution. That’s the first point. In fact, over a thousand different policies were identified. But the second important point that relates to your question is that of course the cost of those policies can vary very significantly, and in particular the Productivity Commission has made absolutely clear that the cheapest way in an economy to cut your carbon pollution so that it has the least impact on electricity prices, for example, is through a market mechanism like an emissions trading scheme. Now that’s a very important finding from this report today.

LEIGH SALES: So does that mean that under your scheme you can rule out that we would see electricity price rises of that magnitude?

GREG COMBET: Well when we produce the final modelling and the whole of the package, the electricity price impacts will be there for everyone to see, as well as what the Government plans to assist households meet any price impacts. And we’ve been very clear that at least half of the revenue from the carbon price will be used to assist households and particularly pensioners and low and middle income households.

LEIGH SALES: The report examined only eight countries. What point is there in using the actions of those eight countries to justify action in Australia when their economies are so different to ours?

GREG COMBET: Well our economy is certainly different and we’ve gotta design a carbon price mechanism of course that suits our particular circumstances. But, nonetheless, I think you’d agree that it’s important in the public policy debate that we’re having that we’ve got some more facts on the table, and here we have the Productivity Commission, an independent body, has had a look over the last six or seven months at the economies of seven of our major trading partners to identify what policies they have embraced to reduce carbon pollution as part of their efforts to tackle climate change. And of course they’ve identified …

LEIGH SALES: But I just wonder, minister, if …

GREG COMBET: But it’s very important, this point: including Australia’s policies, there’s a thousand policies that have been identified in the economies of our major trading partners, and this is in an environment where of course other people, such as Tony Abbott, are running around saying nothing’s going on. In fact a lot is going on.

LEIGH SALES: But I just wonder, minister, if people – I just wonder if people are sitting around their dinner tables tonight going, “Oh, sweetheart, oh my goodness, we’re falling behind Germany. Guess we’d better get behind this carbon price.”

LEIGH SALES: Well, but, what I’m saying is do you think it’s really a persuasive argument that’s going to change Australians’ minds about whether or not they support a carbon price?

GREG COMBET: Well that’s one of the issues that’s been in debate and now we’ve got some facts on the table. I think that should be respected. The Productivity Commission’s an independent body. It was asked to go and have a look at what carbon pricing methods there are in the economies of our trading partners. It’s gone and done that, it’s catalogued a thousand different policies. Many of them are more effective and less effective than others. Also more are costly and less costly than others.

LEIGH SALES: Australia is heavily dependent on coal production. The Australian Coal Association released research yesterday showing that none of our competitors in coal production are applying carbon taxes or emissions reduction schemes. So, is a carbon price going to put Australia at a competitive disadvantage?

GREG COMBET: No, it will not. And you just made the point to me a moment ago that of course you’ve gotta take into account our particular circumstances in Australia. And one of our circumstances in Australia is that the coal industry and the LNG industry are contributing the fastest growing category of greenhouse gases in our economy. And it is not credible for us not to include those important sectors within a carbon pricing scheme. If you didn’t, what you’d be doing is asking other sectors of the economy like the manufacturing industry to bear the cost of the pollution reductions, and to achieve it at least cost we need to include the major sectors of our economy.

On the coal industry specifically, at an example of a $20-per-tonne carbon price, the average liability for each tonne of coal mined in our economy for its methane emissions would be about $1.60 per tonne, and that’s in a context where steaming coal’s selling for more than $120 a tonne and coking coal in particular’s selling for more than $320 a tonne.

You know, people like Tony Abbott are running round saying it’s gonna be the end of the coal industry, the sky is gonna fall in. I mean, he’s the best Chicken Little you’ve ever seen. But in fact this is a manageable economic and environmental reform and we predict that the costs will be modest.

LEIGH SALES: Minister, on another matter, as a member of the Labor left, how comfortable are you with children being put in detention in Malaysia?

GREG COMBET: Well, I support the Government’s policy and I’m looking forward to the conclusion of the agreement with Malaysia because I think it’ll be an important step in us dealing with what is a very complex and difficult problem. And I know that my colleague, the Minister for Immigration, Chris Bowen, is working extremely hard on that and it shouldn’t be assumed that Chris Bowen doesn’t have the same concerns as other members of the community on this issue. He does.

LEIGH SALES: Do you have concerns about children being in detention in Malaysia?

GREG COMBET: I’ve got complete confidence in what the Prime Minister and Chris Bowen are doing in negotiating with Malaysia and I think we should wait to see the outcome of those discussions.

LEIGH SALES: You gave a speech last year in which you said Labor needed to return to its core values of social justice, compassion and equity. In what way is sending asylum seeker children to an uncertain future in Malaysia compatible with those core values?

GREG COMBET: Oh, well, Labor is doing its best to represent those values by trying to avoid people getting on a boat and coming across the ocean, and we’ve seen what tragic consequences can result. So I’ve got complete confidence in our policy position, and as I said, in the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration in pursuing this policy. And on the broader point that you’re making, I think Labor is doing a lot to demonstrate its commitment to social justice and equity. And in my own portfolio area, one of the most important issues of equity for future generations is that we tackle this problem. People running around saying we don’t have to tackle climate change, there’s nothing we have to do, are leaving a huge risk for future generations. And what we’ve gotta be attending to is our responsibility to play a part internationally to tackle climate change by reducing pollution and exercise our responsibility for future generations in our own country. Australia’s got a lot to lose if we don’t tackle climate change. We’re talking about intergenerational equity here, and it’s why I think that Labor should be proud of what is endeavouring to achieve.

LEIGH SALES: Greg Combet, thankyou very much for making time to speak to us tonight.

GREG COMBET: Pleasure, Leigh.

You decide for yourself if the “$1.60″ is being deliberately misleading. (& @50 I did put the suggestion in that it was the CH4 release at mining)

…Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Australian there was little point doing anything about Australia’s feral camels as only the CO2 of the domesticated variety is counted under the Kyoto Protocol. That equates to only a small number of the beasts, the sort found lugging tourists around Cable Beach in Broome and at Monarto Zoo, southeast of Adelaide.

Pattoh – it is misleading if you have poor comprehension skills I guess. Allan while that is possibly true the question was about Aussie coal’s competitiveness with international coal producers. It was not about the impact on local downstream users of coal who would be subject to the tax.

I think the cat says it all, I mean ‘serious cat’ – really? And these juveniles honestly believe they can be a genuine political force.

Yeah, here in the U.S. I’m seeing heavy duty tv commercials utilizing what sounds and looks like no more than a 5 year old child touting wind and tides as energy sources. My first thought was about child abuse…until I realized who they were targeting.

The question is not how many countries have adopted carbon-control policies, but how many countries have adopted EFFECTIVE carbon control policies! If we’re using the Spanish, German and Californian economies as models, it’s time to cash in those Pacific Peso’s ($A) into some “Real” currency.

Combet is a good politician – but he’s not serving the people who are paying his wages. Leigh Sales might be a good journalist – but she let a shady politicians get off the hook.

Haven’t yet found the results of their sheep farting and burping study as I thought it more important to make you aware of the cattle.

Isn’t it wonderful though, to know our premier scientific body is carrying out these momentous planet-saving studies! Just lucky for scientists that dinosaurs aren’t around in these scary CAGW times. Don’t know how they’d take to being corralled in a big enclosed tent
to have their emissions measured nor how we’d get them in there.

Hey, that may be how they became “ex-stinked” – farted and burped themselves into their own state of CDGW (Catastrophic Dinosaural Global Warming or was it Cooling)!

Google “CSIRO sheep emissions study” and research for yourselves just how well taxpayer’s money is being spent in trying to meet the “greatest moral challenge of our times!

It is an undeniable truth that every citizen of this Great Southern Land desires nothing less than for their children and grand children than to prosper as they did and care for this land as they do. Accusing free thinkers (or sceptics as we are labelled) of anything less not only would be objectionable but dishonest.
At this very moment Australians are recycling, taking care to not unduly pollute their soil, air, water; and take care and responsibility to not waste water and electricity. Australians could possibly be the most environmentally conscious and accountable users of water, electricity and other resources. It is un-Australian to pollute and to waste.

Yet our government unashamedly accuses Australians of being the exact opposite. A tax on carbon dioxide is to be imposed because we are polluters. Unconscionable miscreants destroying a country. I reject the accusation. Legislation exists by which polluters can be held to account for polluting. Why not hold them to account? I believe environmentalism has merely become the vehicle by which this government is determined to deliver a social agenda so far reaching, its implausibility shields it true objectives.

Could it be that we are on a journey towards a neo-socialist state? All socialist states were built on the hope and dreams of creating a socialist Utopia. Could this carbon tax be anything but a redistribution of wealth; a social program that inevitably will impoverish the nation; to increasing governmental control over every aspect of our lives by restrict our liberties and freedom of choice?

Our government regard us as polluters and contaminators when in fact our social conscience has transformed our environmental awareness to the point where the next step backwards will be into a cave. Every day we are vilified for using electricity to live everyday lives. Televisions, fridges, laptops, mobile phones, washing machines, clothes dryers, none of which can possibly be considered luxury items are being targeted by the eco-fascists. ‘Use less’ is the battle cry of an environmental movement not focused on saving the planet but on controlling our lives. Use less what? Anything less and we ought to move back into caves; become hunter gatherers; and descend into pre-historic social chaos.

If my cynicism is unfounded, could anyone please explain to me why this government then is hell bent on establishing a pseudo-communist state in Australia?

On the off topic subject about methane gasses produced by camels, cows and sheep, here’s an interesting observation by Professor Brian Cox:
It is estimated that termites emit 50 Million tons of methane into the atmosphere each year.

Hmm, and they’ve been doing so for millions of years. Isn’t carbon a wonderful thing!

I’m confused… haven’t human beings wiped out million and billions of defenceless animals since we colonised this planet… We are, after all, “Vermin”, as Jane Goodall described us on 774 today. So there must be fewer animals today compared to when we started our planetary “Blitz Krieg”, therefore less animal f**ts and therefore less methane. So therefore less warming… why is it getting hotter????

The bottom line is that a tax always destroys wealth. It’s bad enough when that tax buys you a worthwhile government service that couldn’t be provided any other way. National defense, police, courts and some other things come to mind.

But what can you say of a tax that simply sends money to the UN and national politicians to play with because of some agreement that hot air has a value if it has less CO2 in it?

@Abe #63 “could anyone please explain to me why this government then is hell bent on establishing a pseudo-communist state in Australia”

Here’s my take:

Where did the anti-CO2 movement come from? Looks to me like Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”. I’ve read his book “Our choice”, by a team of writers with lead author Gore to give just the right spin on the pseudo-science. Not a lot different from the IPCC reports I’ve also read – the higher up the food chain the reports go, the less scientific the opinions. That was before climategate even happened. Thank goodness someone with a conscience did a wikileaks on climate scientists.

Why did Gore do it? Was it because his father was former head of the Atomic Energy Commission? Did he need a Nobel Peace prize to feed his narcissitic political ego? Maybe he always wanted to be a writer? Perhaps he is just doing the good for the American people?

Pro-nuclear interests think nuclear energy is very clean and very safe (try http://www.bravenewclimate.com). US nuclear industries need a boost. Turns out that there is only ONE energy source that is remotely competitive with traditional electricity generation with a small carbon tax of $30 dollars a ton, and that’s nuclear power. Presently, other alternative energy sources (solar, wind, etc) require a carbon tax of around $80-90/ton to be competitive.

Now I read that the climate change movement is a plot to keep the developing worlds (esp China, India) from having access to relatively cheap carbon-based energy. (Hmmm wonder why the IPCC head honcho is Indian?) Anyway, who doesn’t want to sell more nuclear power plants to underdeveloped countries.

Looks like Gore has masterfully allied the “green” movement to supporting pro-US and pro-nuclear interests on the global stage. Brilliant!

The Greens in a nutshell. A cat denying rights to humans. On a more whistful note, perhaps they could have written:

“Serious Cat Denies Your Access. If you had proceeded, you might have discovered that over 80% of the Australian public do not support a carbon (dioxide) tax, and, furthermore, find out that the science that is supposed to justify this tax is full of scientific consistencies bordering on and crossing over the limits of fraud.

You might find out that the greens do not really like you, or people in general, and they they prefer an abstract and unrealistic view of society in which you would enjoy few, if any, rights. You may also discover that their policies are not logically or ethically based.

You might find out that their platform is built on spin and deception, with foundations of an illogical and misanthropic philosphy.

Why did Gore do it? Was it because his father was former head of the Atomic Energy Commission? Did he need a Nobel Peace prize to feed his narcissitic political ego? Maybe he always wanted to be a writer? Perhaps he is just doing the good for the American people?

My “take” on Gore, for whatever it’s worth is that he started out to prove to his long dead father than he could amount to something. He was a flop as a military officer, had a completely undistinguished Senate career and couldn’t get elected president. But he still wanted to live up to his father’s expectation (or what he thought was his father’s expectation). Once he found out he could make huge sums of money he had all the more reason to go on. If he’s in bed with any other interest but his own I’ll bet it’s a matter of money to be made.

I’ve seen this kind of thing before and up close. It’s ugly and destructive.